High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWAREROBERT BOSCH, LLC., )
)
Plaintiff, ))
v.
) Civ. No. 08-542-SLR
)
PYLON MANUFACTURING CORP., )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 30th day
of
March, 2010, having heard argument on, andhaving reviewed the papers submitted
in
connection with, the parties' proposed claimconstruction;IT IS ORDERED that the disputed claim language
of
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,292,974("the '974 patent"), 6,675,434 ("the '434 patent"), 6,944,905 ("the '905 patent"),6,978,512 ("the '512 patent") and 6,640,380 ("the '380 patent") shall be construedconsistent with the tenets
of
claim construction set forth by the United States Court
of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit
in
Phillips
v.
AWH
Corp.,
415
F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.2005), as follows:
1.
"[C]omponent:"1 "A single-
or
multiple-part structure having a cross-section
in
the shape
of
a triangle
or
wedge." This construction is consistent with the claims aswell as the specification. (col. 2:21-23; col. 3:33; col. 4:41) The court finds no supportfor defendant's proposed construction requiring the component to
be
"solid." Defendantalso seeks to limit this construction according to one embodiment
of
the invention which1'974 patent, claim 1 (and dependent claims).
requires the component to have a hardness no greater than the hardness
of
the wiperstrip. (col. 3:27-28) However, such an interpretation would render superfluous thehardness limitation
of
dependent claim
6,
which requires that the component have "ahardness which is no greater than a hardness
of
said
[J
wiper strip." Moreover, in itstraversal
of
Ludwig, the patentee explained the hardness relationship
of
these twoitems, noting that the wiper strip and the component "can have different hardnesses,which on the other hand they must not necessarily have as well."
(D.1.
162 at JA00190-91)
2.
"[M]ounted
to
said concave surface
of
said
support
element:"2 "Securedto." This construction is consistent with the claims as well as the speCification. (col.2:16-19; col. 2:29-30)
3.
"[M]ounted
directly
to the convex surface
of
said
support
element:"3"Secured directly to." This construction is consistent with the claims as well as thespecification. (col. 2:16-19; col. 2:29-30)
4. U[A]
leading edge
face:"4 ''The surface
of
the component [forming an acuteangle with the surface
of
the window] facing into the wind."
The
parties generally agreethat this limitation requires the surface
of
the component to face into the wind. Thebracketed phrase, however, is contained in claim 1 and illuminates the construedphrase.
2'974
patent, claim 1 (and dependent claims).
3'974
patent, claim 1 and dependent claims).4'974 patent, claim 1 (and dependent claims).2
5.
"[W]herein
said
leading edge face
is disposed
on a face
of
said
support
element
which
faces
away from
the window:"5 Insofar as this phrase
is
unsupported
by
the specification and has no apparent plain meaning, it will not be construed.
6.
"[W]herein each
crosspiece disposed
at
the
end
sections
of
the
two
spring
strips is
provided
with
a
covering
cap:"6 "Crosspieces must be located at theterminal portions of the spring strips." The construction
is
consistent with thespecification
of
the '512 patent, which does not disclose an embodiment havingcrosspieces located other than at the terminal portions
of
the spring strips.
It
is
likewiseconsistent with the prosecution history,
in
which the examiner rejected the claims of the'512 patent
as
anticipated by several prior art wiper blades having crosspiecesdisposed
at
the ends
of
the spring strips.
(0.1.
165 at JA01077) The applicant did nottraverse this rejection by noting that the crosspieces
of
the '512 patent could
be
disposed elsewhere along the spring strips.
(Id.
at JA011 06) Nor can plaintiffconvincingly invoke the doctrine of claim differentiation
in
its argument that dependentclaim
4,
which requires "at least one crosspiece
...
disposed at each end section[,]"mandates a broader interpretation
of
independent claim
1.
See
Kraft Foods, Inc.
v.
Int'lTrading
Co.,
203 F.3d 1362, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (written description andprosecution history rebut any presumption arising from the doctrine
of
claimdifferentiation) .
5'974
patent, claim
2.
6'512
patent, claim 1 (and dependent claims).
3
Add a Comment